International Relations (IR) is a broad field that allows concentration in speci fic aspects for students wishing to specialize,

and general training in the subj ect for students seeking to achieve a wider appreciation of international politi cs. It teaches students the critical use of concepts as a basis for understandin g and analyzing international relations. The field consists of five programs, & students may group their courses in any of these programs or choose courses from multiple programs. A student may also concentrate in General International Rela tions. The programs are: >>Conflict Management >>Energy, Resources and Environment >>Global Theory and History >>International Law and Organizations >>Strategic Studies As an academic, you basically do retrospective analysis with more or less full i nformation and lots of time, When you're making foreign policy, you have no time & limited informaton. p2: international relations scholarship can be relevant to policymakers because it c an offer potentially important new insights into issues. Yet cautioned academics to avoid policy-directed research and instead concentrate on doing "serious" wo rk that might one day make a contribution - although perhaps not in a predictabl e manner. Formal training in academic international relations can be useful, because it te aches people how to think systematically and build frameworks for considering is sues. If you have a lot of social science training, you can write better memos, compared to the foreign policy decision-making systems in continental Europe and in most other developed nations, the American process is "extremely porous" in that many outsiders have access to government officials, This creates opportunities for what Blacker called "policy entrepreneurs" ...

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Sovereignty is the quality of having independent authority over a geographic are a, such as a territory. It can be found in a power to rule and make laws that rests on a political fact for which no pure legal definition can be provided. In theoretical terms, the i dea of "sovereignty", historically, from Socrates to Thomas Hobbes, has always n ecessitated a moral imperative on the entity exercising it. For centuries past, the idea that a state could be sovereign was always connecte d to its ability to guarantee the best interests of its own citizens. Thus, if a state could not act in the best interests of its own citizens, it could not be thought of as a "sovereign" state. The current notion of state sovereignty contains four aspects, or different ways of understanding the term: > domestic sovereignty > interdependence sovereignty

> international legal sovereignty > Westphalian sovereignty p2; Differences between Islamic concept of sovereignty and western concept of sovere ignty 1. As to authority (i) In Islam sovereignty of entire universe belongs to ALLAH. (ii) In western concept sovereignty belongs to people. 2. As to kinds of sovereignty (i) In Islam there is no kind of sovereignty. (ii) In western concept sovereignty his different kinds. 3. As to state (i) Sovereignty in Islam is not subject to state. (ii) In western concept there must be state for sovereignty. 4. As to scope (i) Islamic concept of sovereignty has wider scope. (ii) Western concept of sovereignty has less scope. 5. As to perfection (i) Islamic concept of sovereignty is perfect in all aspect. (ii) Western concept of sovereignty is imperfect. 6. As to nature (i) Islamic concept is permanent nature. (ii) Western concept is temporary nature.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Imperialism, as defined by the People of Human Geography, is "the creation and/o r maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship, us ually between states and often in the form of an empire, based on domination and subordination." Colonialism is defined as the establishment, exploitation, maintenance, acquisit ion and expansion of colonies in one territory by people from another territory. It is a process whereby the metropole claims sovereignty over the colony, and t he social structure, government, and economics of the colony are changed by colo nizers from the metropole. Colonialism is a set of unequal relationships between the metropole and the colony and between the colonists and the indigenous popul ation. Colonialism and imperialism are often used interchangeably, but they are two dif ferent words having different meaning.

p2 As both colonialism and Imperialism means political and economic domination of t he other, scholars often find it hard to differentiate the two. Though both the words underline suppression of the other, Colonialism is where o ne nation assumes control over the other and Imperialism refers to political or economic control, either formally or informally. In simple words, colonialism ca n be thought to be a practice and imperialism as the idea driving the practice. Colonialism is a term where a country conquers and rules over other regions. It means exploiting the resources of the conquered country for the benefit of the c onqueror. Imperialism means creating an empire, expanding into the neighbouring regions and expanding its dominance far. Colonialism is termed as building and maintaining colonies in one territory by p eople from another territory. p3; Colonialism can altogether alter the social structure, physical structure and e conomics of a region. It is quite normal that in the long run, the traits of the conqueror are inherited by the conquered. Colonialism is a term used to describe the settlement of places like India, Aust ralia, North America, Algeria, New Zealand and Brazil, which were all controlled by the Europeans. Imperialism, on the other hand is described where a foreign g overnment governs a territory without significant settlement. The scramble for A frica in the late 19th century and the American domination of Puerto Rico and th e Philippines can be cited as examples of Imperialism. In Colonialism, one can see great movement of people to the new territory and li ving as permanent settlers. Though they lead the life as permanent settlers, the y still maintain allegiance to their mother country.

p4; Imperialism is just exercising power over the conquered regions either throu gh sovereignty or indirect mechanisms of control. Coming to the origin of the two, Imperialism has a longer history than Coloniali sm. While the history of colonialism dates back to 15th century, Imperialism has its origins dating back to the Romans. Colonialism has its origins when Europeans started to look outside their country , pursuing trade with other nations. Though colonialism can be attributed to the trade pursuits of a country, Imperialism is just not like that and it involves individual pursuits only. Coming to the etymology, colony comes from the Latin word colonus, which means f armers. Imperialism also comes from Latin word imperium, which means to command. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=p1 - Balance of Power:: By 1948, the United States and Soviet Union had established their spheres of in fluence in Western and Eastern Europe respectively. Unlike World War I when a de finitive treaty emerged to determine a new balance of power, no such treaty emer

ged after World War II. This was because there was such a quick falling out betw een Stalin and the Western allies after the war. The fates of Western Europe and Eastern Europe had been determined without direct confrontation between the two superpowers. But, by 1948, when the two superpowers had established their spher es of influence, they started confronting each other in what is known as the Col d War. The Cold War was a period of hostility and competition between the United States and the Soviet Union that always stopped short of direct war between them. p2; It never erupted into open warfare, mainly because their growing arsenals of nuc lear weapons made such a war seem suicidal to both sides. Therefore, the Cold Wa r assumed the form of a series of crises that were resolved along two lines of d evelopment: either by non military means or by fighting by proxy (substitute) wh ere one or both powers fought each other by supporting smaller allied states in regional wars. The Korean (1950-53), Vietnam (1954-75), Arab-Israeli (1948, 1956 , 1967, 1973, and 1982), and Afghan (1979-89) wars were all examples of the supe rpowers exploiting regional conflicts to promote their own ends. Crises resolved through non-military means actually ran a higher risk of eruptin g into all out war, since the Americans and Soviets were directly opposed to one another. In these cases, each side would play a dangerous game of brinkmanship where it would try to push the other side

p3; into a position that would make any further escalation of the crisis run the risk of full-scale war. The initial stages of the Cold War were played out in t wo widely separated theaters corresponding to the two main theaters of World War II: Europe and Asia. some of the scholars assert that the classical balance of power among states cam e to an end with the outbreak of First World war and the innovative methods marked twentieth century with collective security and balance of terror to manage international system. That i s indeed, false analysis about international system from 1945 to 1990, as the era starting from onset of cold war to the end of cold war was marked by the active pursuit of maintain balance of p ower between Superpowers and their respective allies. India and Pakistan from the early years after their independence got engaged in conventional balance. p4; After India obtained nuclear bomb in 1974 and achieved superiority in milita ry power over Pakistan. As a result of asymmetric balance of power, Pakistan felt threate ned by Indian might and ultimately in May, 1998 became a 2nd nuclear power in South Asia. Paki stan s nuclearization restored the lost balance of power between India and Pakistan. Th e purpose to present a brief glimpse of Pakistan and India s shift from conventional balance of

power to nuclear balance of power is that both states experienced peace power position and experienced war or otherwise skirmishes at border whenever got disturbed between them. In sum, despite intense scholarly criticism, Realism , sticks y in the field of international relations. States are continuously engaged in perceived threats.

during balance of balance of power around dominant theor balancing against

p5; Balance of power among rival states can ensure relative peace. Cold war could no t turn into hot war because of about balance between nuclear superpowers which was followed by p olicy of dtente between them. Similarly India and Pakistan in post nuclear scenario initia ted peace process to resolve outstanding issues between them. Indian Prime Minister, visit ed Pakistan in Feb, 1999 and inaugurated bus service between New Delhi and Lahor e to enhance people to people contacts between the two nations. Attempts to trigger w ar between India and Pakistan could not succeed but created hypertension. It can be conclud ed that balance of power, if does not bring peace but reduces the chances of war among rival sta tes. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Is War Inivetable for Peace? No. At least at the present time it cannot be considered inevitable. Of course, in the United States of America, in Britain, as also in France, there are aggressive forces thirsting for a new war. They need war to obtain super-pr ofits, to plunder other countries. These are the billionaires and millionaires w ho regard war as an item of income which gives colossal profits. They, these aggressive forces, control the reactionary governments and direct th em. But at the same time they are afraid of their peoples who do not want a new war and stand for the maintenance of peace. Therefore they are trying to use the reactionary governments in order to enmesh their peoples with lies, to deceive them, and to depict the new war as defensive and the peaceful policy of the peac e-loving countries as aggressive.

p2; They are trying to deceive their peoples in order to impose on them their aggres sive plans &to draw them into a war. Precisely for this reason they are afraid of the campaign in defense of peace, f earing that it can expose the aggressive intentions of the reactionary governmen ts.

Precisely for this reason they turned down the proposal of d Soviet Union for th e conclusion of a Peace Pact, for d reduction of armaments, for banning the atom ic weapon, fearing that the adoption of these proposals would undermine the aggr essive measures of d reactionary governments and make the armaments race unneces sary. Peace will be preserved and consolidated if the peoples will take the cause of p reserving peace into their own hands and will defend it to the end. War may becu m inevitable if the warmongers succeed in entangling d masses of the people in l ies, in deceiving them and drawing them into a new world war. p3; That is why the wide campaign for the maintenance of peace as a means of exposin g the criminal machinations of the warmongers is now of first-rate importance. As for the Soviet Union, it will continue in the future as well firmly to pursue the policy of averting war and maintaining peace.

CAuses of War : Before being able to usefully occupy oneself with combating an evil, one must kn ow its cause. Thus, seeking the primary cause of war is the first step in preventing it. So if we go back over the chain of causes and effects scientifically that result in the outbreak of a war we finally find a primordial cause from which all othe rs flow: overpopulation, i.e., the excess of population in one or several territ ories, each subject to a different national solidarity. p4; Undertaking in this way an investigation of the causes of wars, working back fro m the final physical cause to the original, natural cause and logically drawing a preventive system from it, is what I call scientific pacifism (it is only after doing this that one can indulge in metaphysical divagations). This is in opposit ion to the pacifism of sentimental or mystical pacifists, who think that they wi ll transform their wishes into realities with beautiful and noble words. This is also in opposition to the pacifism of incomplete pacifists who, while being ani mated by a spirit more realist than those previously mentioned, stop at a certai n point in their search for the causes of war. Unfortunately, until now there have been few scientific pacifists who have noted or admitted the existence of overpopulation as the primary cause of war.

p5; The others, men of good will, though insufficiently enlightened, by attributing an exclusive or exaggerated importance to secondary facts, hinder rather than ac celerate the solution to the problem of universal peace. For example, they accou nt for the evil of war by the natural pugnacity of man, i.e., his combative inst inct; by his contempt for the lives of others, i.e., a vulgar and poorly underst ood egoism; by the patriotic sentiment, by nationalist doctrines, by the authori tarian basis of society, by the capitalist regime, etc. factors which certainly contribute to a greater or lesser extent to the blossoming of war, but none of w

hich are the fundamental cause.